Talk:Terrence Deacon

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia Stub‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

University of California Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to University of California, its history, accomplishments and other topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject University of CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject University of CaliforniaUniversity of California articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology Start‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Birthdate?

What might his birthday be? -- Yossarian 08:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution-like process

What would that be?Levalley (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any process that generates patterns out of entropy.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New York Review of Books reference

The June 7 2012 issue was available in PRINT on May 15. See the quotes in the cited Chronicle article or http://emergence.org/NYRBARTICLE.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.148.130 (talk) 07:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How should we handle this?

Resolved

It seems to be a case of either parallel research or insufficient citation. A court may have to decide which. There is no outright claim of plagiarism. The one author wrote a book similar to two other books in content and it seems that irked a few because they thought the other two books should have been mentioned in his as sources. It is an article on a BLP an thus should be handled correctly.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the edit by Maproom is acceptable. It reports the issue without being POV--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it's not POV. The edit relays that Deacon is not apologizing but doesn't relay that he says the lack of attribution was unintentional. Smear campaigns use exactly this sort of selective inclusion of information. It would also seem important to note that the link to "reviewers" is an article by Thompson himself (the author of one of the books being compared to Deacon's). David kilmer (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the controversy should be mentioned, and the Nature article cited. This doesn't mean that Thompson is right and Deacon wrong, it just shows that there is a controversy, and that it is notable enough to have featured in a leading journal. I am less happy about the assertion that Deacon has refused to apologise, as this is taken from what appears to be a single-issue web site maintained by one of his opponents.

In my view, neither party to this dispute, at least as seen on Wikipedia, is looking good. Michael Lissack has cited two single-issue web sites, http://theterrydeaconaffair.com/ and http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/stolen-ideas-or-great-minds-thinking-alike, in support of his view, even though they appear to have been created (admittedly to a professional standard) solely to give support to his side. But Lissack is more honest than 76.206.196.80, who deleted relevant, accurate, referenced material from the article, and described its placement there as "vandalism".

I am inclined to do nothing more until the New York review of Books appears on June 7th, and then to consider citing that as well. I have tried to read the London Review of Books article on-line: the first page is very critical of Deacon's book but does not mention this controversy, and I can't read any further without paying £19.99. Maproom (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't newspaper that has to report right away. Could we just remove all of it until after June 7?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've read both the NYRB (McGinn) review and the LRB (Fodor) review. McGinn mentions the controversy, Fodor does not. I have no problem with the mention of the controversy (given the cite-able Nature and NYRB reviews), but the Percolator cite is a weak, online source, and if it's going to be mentioned, Deacon's claim that the lack of attribution was unintentional should be mentioned as well. I plan to make this change unless there's a good argument against it (looks like Canoe1967 already did that). Just as a note, I think it's important not to try to get into the validity of the claims. That should go without saying. David kilmer (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is my wording of the Deacon statement ok with all then?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm good. Thanks for doing the edit. David kilmer (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly last week I was reading Vygotsky's Thought and Language (1934) and in one passage he pretty much summarises Deacon's The Symbolic Species (1997). In any case I think Deacon has been planning this book for a long time, when Symbolic species came out he already mentioned that it was the first of a trilogy.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome David, and thanks Maunus for ~~spanking~~ correcting my grammar ~~grandma~~.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 7 has passed

It seems the review is complete but I don't have an account to read it online. Since there is newer information available I am going to remove the entire controversy until we can read the updated information. This is a BLP and we should not keep old information in it that has been changed until we can find a source readable by all as to what the change was.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused. The June7th review is available as per the link above as is the LRB. there was no "change" from the print version.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.148.130 (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC) I went on-line and found a pdf of the on-line version of the NYRB at http://emergence.org/McGinn.pdf[reply]

Sorry. The link I was given needed a subscription. The agreed upon wording is back in the article now as it seems to match the June 7 review. I marked this section resolved since all seem happy with the wording. If a wording change is needed again we can remove the tag or open a new section.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding "summary" language with no secondary source

Canoe

if the material you have added comes from Nature then it should be so cited. If it comes from Incomplete Nature (Deacon's book) then the referencing is meaningless since one cannot abbreviate 20 plus pages into a single sentence without writing one's OWN interpretation.